Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com To: tprince@computer.org Cc: "Billinghurst, David (CRTS)" , , Subject: Re: Object alignment, was: cygwin failures - assertion "!(addr & FLAGS)" failed: References: <20020506001833.617B12CA87@inet1.ywave.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com X-Attribution: Tom X-Zippy: HOORAY, Ronald!! Now YOU can marry LINDA RONSTADT too!! Date: 05 May 2002 22:49:56 -0600 In-Reply-To: Tim Prince's message of "Sun, 5 May 2002 17:18:34 -0700" Message-ID: <876621ev7v.fsf@creche.redhat.com> Lines: 15 >>>>> "Tim" == Tim Prince writes: Tim> The binutils alignment parameter in coff-i386.c is set to 4-byte Tim> alignment. 4-byte alignment also is the default for gcc -Os, at Tim> least from gcc-3.1. Cases have been produced where gcc-3.1 Tim> failed to give 16-byte alignment even with -O2, unless Tim> -mpreferred-stack-boundary=4 was specified. Are you talking about only the alignment of the stack? I don't think that should matter to libgcj. There used to be one place where we stack-allocated an object, but I believe that now there aren't any. All that matters to us is the alignment of statically allocated object, and objects created by the GC. Tom -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/